PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGICAL DISCOURSE

Transcription

1 PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGICAL DISCOURSE

2 CLAREMONT STUDIES IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION General Editor: D. Z. Phillips, Rush Rhees Research Professor, University of Wales, and Danforth Professor of the Philosophy of Religion, the Claremont Graduate School, Califomia At a time when discussions of religion are becoming increasingly specialized and determined by religious affiliations, it is important to maintain a forum for philosophical discussion wh ich transcends the allegiances of belief and unbelief. This series affords an opportunity for philosophers of widely differing persuasions to explore central issues in the philosophy of religion. Titles include: Stephen T. Davis (editor) PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGICAL DISCOURSE D. Z. Phillips (editor) CAN RELIGION BE EXPLAlNED AWAY? RELIGION AND MORALITY D. Z. Phillips and Timothy Tessin (editors) RELIGION WITHOUT TRANSCENDENCE? Timothy Tessin and Mario von der Ruhr (editors) PHILOSOPHY AND THE GRAMMAR OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF

3 Philosophy and Theological Discourse Edited by Stephen T. Davis Claremont McKenna College Claremont

4 First published in Great Britain 1997 by MACMILLAN PRESS LTD Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and London Companies and representatives throughout the world A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN ISBN (ebook) DOI / First published in the United States of America 1997 by ST. MARTIN'S PRESS, INC., Scholarly and Reference Division, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y ISBN Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Philosophy and theological discourse / edited by Stephen T. Davis. p. cm. - (Claremont studies in the philosophy ofreligion) Inc1udes bibliographical references and index. ISBN (cloth) I. Philosophical theology. 2. Philosophy and religion. I. Davis, Stephen T., Series. BT40.P '.01-DC CIP Claremont Graduate School 1997 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1 st edition 1997 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any Iicence permiuing Iimited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London WIP 9HE. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be Iiable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources I

5 Contents Notes on the Contributors Introduction I CLASSICAL THEISM AND THE THEOLOGICAL GIVEN The Centrality of Theism for Christianity Paul Badham Notes on a 'Monstrous Illusion' D.Z. Phi/lips 2 The Invisibility of the Church in American Protestant Theology and the Issue of Catholic Reality 22 Jack Verheyden Towards a Church both Visible and Catholic Anse/rn Kyongsuk Min 3 Tradition, Scripture and Theological Authority Stephen T. Davis Authority, Scripture and Tradition: A Barthian Comment Frank Rogers vii ix n CHANGING CONCEPTIONS OF THEOLOGICAL DOCTRINES 4 Is the Doctrine of the Atonement amistake? John Hick Atoning Transactions Robert Merrihew Adams 5 The Holy Spirit and the Trinity Williarn P. Alston The Third Person of the Trinity Joseph Runzo v

6 vi Contents 6 The Contextualization of God M arjorie Suchocki Contextualization and The Experienee of God Axel Steuer m THE ETHICAL AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OFTHEOLOGY 7 Religious Ethies after Ethics after Babel: MacIntyre's Tradition versus Stout's Bricolage Philip L. Quinn Religion in Publie Diseourse, But not in Publie Poliey 169 Richard Rice 8 Chalcedonian Christology: A Christian Solution to the Problem of Evil Marilyn McCord Adams Theodiey and Divine Omnipotence John B. Cobb Jr 9 The Plaee of Phronesis in the Methodology oftheology Linda Zagzebski The Role of Virtue in Epistemie Praetices Nancey Murphy Index 229

7 Notes on the Contributors Marilyn McCord Adams is Professor of Historical Theology at the Yale Divinity School. Robert Merrihew Adams is Clark Professor of Moral Philosophy and Metaphysics at Yale University. William P. Alston is Professor of Philosophy at Syracuse University. Paul Badham is Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at University of Wales, Lampeter. John B. Cobb Jr is Ingraham Professor of Theology, Emeritus, at the School of Theology at Claremont. Stephen T Davis is Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Claremont McKenna College. John Hick is Danforth Professor of the Philosophy of Religion, Emeritus, at the Claremont Graduate School, and Fellow of the Institute for Advanced Research in the Humanities, Birmingham University. Anselm Kyongsuk Min is Professor of Religion at Claremont Graduate School. Nancey Murphy is Associate Professor of Christi an Philosophy at Fuller Theological Seminary. D.Z. Phillips is Danforth Professor of the Philosophy of Religion at the Claremont Graduate School and Rush Rhees Research Professor, University of Wales, Swansea. Philip L. Quinn is John A. Q'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. Richard Rice is Professor of Theology at La Sierra University. Vll

8 viii Notes on the Contributors Frank Rogers is Associate Professor of Religious Education at the School of Theology at Claremont. Joseph Runzo is Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Chapman University. Axel Steuer is President and Professor of Religion at Gustavus Adolphus College. Marjorie Suchocki is Ingraham Professor oftheology at the School of Theology at Claremont. Jack Verheyden is Richard Cain Professor of Theology and Ecclesiology at the School of Theology at Claremont. Linda Zagzebski is Professor of Philosophy at Loyola Marymount University.

9 Introduction At one time in Western intehectual history the philosophers and the theologians were pretty much the same sets of people. But the two disciplines drifted apart in the modern period, and for centuries the conversation between them has been negative and polemical. In the first half of the twentieth century, philosophy and theology were scarcely on speaking terms. But times have changed. One of the most interesting movements in recent Christian thought in Great Britain and the United States is the participation of professional philosophers in theological conversation. What has brought about the recent change? First, in the 1960s, from within analytical philosophy broadly conceived, some philosophers began to question the widespread assumption that attention to our ordinary usage of concepts showed that religious belief is confused. They argued that the use of religious concepts was as ordinary as the use of other concepts and that they, like them, awaited conceptual elucidation. Second, beginning in the 1970s, a group of philosophers, most of them practising Christians, seemed almost simultaneously to tire of writing about general issues in theism or the philosophy of religion, and began to address themse1ves to various topics in Christian theology, albeit from different philosophical and denominational perspectives. Most philosophers in this group seem to be either Roman Catholics, Anglicans-Episcopalians or Christians from the Reformed tradition, but there are also Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals and many others. While some professional theologians look with approval on this second movement, others have reservations and even objections to it. There are 'turf' issues involved whenever people from one field write ab out another. Legitimate concerns have been expressed. Are philosophers weh enough trained in the foundational discipline of biblical exegesis to do theology weh? Do they know the history of theology weh enough? Aren't they too inclined to read theological statements as timeless truths (or falsehoods) rather than being sensitive to the historical and social context of those statements? Nevertheless, the conversation between theologians and interested philosophers about theological concepts is going to continue. Indeed, it appears to be gaining momentum. Some of the contributors to the IX

10 x Introduction present collection come from the first philosophical development just mentioned, but most come from the second; others cannot be placed in either category. For example, the collection contains timely reminders that Christian theology cannot be done without firm grounding in both biblical exegesis and the history of doctrine and the Church, and of what can happen to theology, under philosophical influence, when this is forgotten. The collection also contains contributions from the perspectives of process thought, feminist and liberation theology. Yet despite differences, philosophy, as an unending search for clarity, must surely be of assistance to theology. The nine symposia contained in this volume revolve around three large topics. Part I, Classical Theism and the Theological Given, contains discussions of three grand assumptions or 'givens' on which Christian theology is often said to rest: its metaphysical assumptions, the Church and Scripture. In Part II, Changing Concepts of Theological Doctrines, there are discussions of ways in which philosophical reflection, in different centuries, can clarify, motivate or even radically change what theologians have to say. Twentiethcentury theologians cannot simply repeat what their predecessors in the third or sixteenth century had to say. Part III, the Ethical and Social Dimensions of Theology, deals more specifically with the ethical dimensions of theology facing us today. Let me comment on these essays in a!ittle more detail. In Part I, Paul Badham, an Anglican theologian who serves as Dean of the Faculty of Theology in the University of Wales, St David's Lampeter, defends the view that Christian theology presupposes the metaphysical beliefs of philosophical theism. Badham argues that recent Christian theology and practice have neglected the doctrine of God, and that the task of arriving at a coherent and theologically satisfying concept of God ought to be one of the Church's foremost tasks. D.Z. Phillips, Danforth Professor of the Philosophy of Religion at the Claremont Graduate School and Professor of Philosophy in the University of Wales, Swansea, strongly opposes this claim in his response. Arriving at a coherent notion of God cannot be logically prior to Christian practice, since it is Christian practice which gives sense to the Christian notion of God. In the second symposium, the relation of Christian theology to the Church is discussed. Theology does not exist in a vacuum; the Church is the context of Christian theology and practice. Jack Verheyden, Richard Cain Professor of Ecclesiology and Theology at the School of Theology at Claremont, notes critically that despite these seemingly

11 Introduction xi obvious points, ecclesiology (systematic theological reflection about the Church) has been virtually absent in twentieth-century Protestant theology. He argues that there is an urgent need of a reclamation of the centrality of the Church in theology, and that philosophical influences have much to answer for in creating the problem. In his reply, Anselm Min, Professor of Religion at the Claremont Graduate School, agrees that the crisis Verheyden has described exists, but wants to deepen our understanding of the reasons for its existence. In today's world, where we witness a crying out for justice and the alleviation of suffering, it is not surprising that the Churches are more concemed with what they are doing rather than with what they are in themselves. He thinks that the contemporary exploration of what is meant by Christian praxis, though it may not result in formal theologies, may itself constitute a reworking of our idea of the Church. What is now needed in relations between Catholicism and Protestantism is a gathering together of these insights in a nonabsolutizing catholicity. In the third symposium, Stephen T. Davis, Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Claremont McKenna College, argues that there can be no serious theology without authority and that that authority is found pre-eminently in Scripture. While tradition is necessary for the interpretation of Scripture, it cannot take precedence over it. Davis defends this conclusion in the light of formidable objections. The reply to Davis is by Frank Rogers Jr, Associate Professor of Religious Education at the School of Theology at Claremont, a practising Roman Catholic whose theological perspective is informed by Karl Barth. He argues that neither Bible nor Tradition is infallible, but can become authoritative sources when they mediate God's presence in our lives. In Part H, the first symposium gives us an example of the impetus that philosophical reflection can give to radical theological change. John Hick, Danforth Professor of the Philosophy of Religion, emeritus, at the Claremont Graduate School, argues that important changes need to be made to the traditional doctrine of atonement. When atonement is associated with ideas such as inherited guilt, expiation, satisfaction, penal substitution and imputed justification, philosophical reflection can show the doctrine is mistaken. Hick's positive theological recommendation is that we need a transformational model of atonement, similar to the notion of 'deification' in Eastem Orthodoxy, involving a transformation of our lives into the paths of love and forgiveness.

12 XlI Introduction In his reply, Rohert M. Adams, Professor of Philosophy and Chair ofthe Department ofphilosophy at Yale University, agrees with Hick in his rejection of certain traditional conceptions of atonement. He too emphasizes the transfonnational character of atonement, hut insists that Christ's acts amount to a reconstitution of our relationship with God. In the second symposium, William P. Alston, Professor of Philosophy at Syracuse University, discusses the relation of doctrine of the Trinity to the Holy Spirit. Usually, discussions of the Trinity centre on difficulties conceming the Incamation, or of how God can be a plurality of persons. Alston considers the question whether there are functions of the divine which need the conception of the third person of the Trinity and which could not be attributed to God the Father or God the Son. Although he holds that it makes little difterence to the Christian life whether we conceive of God in binatarian or trinitarian tenns, he does conclude with a qualified endorsement of the tradition al notion of the divinity, and the distinct personhood, of the Third Person of the Trinity. In his reply, Joseph Runzo, Giset Professor of Religion and Professor of Philosophy at Chapman University, disagrees with Alston's conclusion. He argues that religious experience, the belief that God is no deceiver and the praxis-forming power of our religious conceptions should all give us good reasons for not jettisoning the notion of the Holy Spirit. In the third symposium, Marjorie Suchocki, Ingraham Professor of Theology at the School of Theology at Claremont argues that a far more radical contextualization of theology is called for in our age than in any previous one. Fonner contextualizations were govemed by the conception of the unknowability of God, whereas ours is govemed by our perception of the social, historieal, political and linguistic contexts in which we live. Influenced by the theology of Leondo Boff, she argues for a new contextualization of theology in the contexts of liberation politics concerning gender and race. It is in these contexts that doctrines such as that of the Trinity must emerge anew, shom of assumptions which no longer address our situation. Axel Steuer, President of Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota, raises critical questions about these conclusions. He asks whether the doctrine of the Trinity, if taken to be a correct interpretation of reality, should not detennine the experiential directions we should take, rather than be regarded as a function of our soteriological needs. Boffs theology is subjected to the same question. Are we

13 Introduction xili prone to move too quickly from how things are to a prescriptive conc1usion regarding how they ought to be? In Part 111, Philip Quinn, lohn A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, raises the issue of the place of theology in debates over public policy. He is concemed about the marginalization of religious ethics in modem society. He considers two proposed solutions to this dilemma, one offered by Alisdair MacIntyre and the other by leffrey Stout. Quinn argues that a Thomistic tradition where differing parties are held together by a respect for each other in a common search for moral truths is not viable in our fragmented culture. By contrast Stout, noting our differences, says that all that can be achieved is abricolage, a putting together of elements of different traditions to serve the purposes of the moment. The danger here is that of losing what is religiously distinctive. Quinn argues that religious moralists, while ready to leam from secular viewpoints, should not apologize for their own point of view. In the ensuing conversation, fanaticism is avoided if apologists restriet themselves to rational persuasion. In this discussion religious apologists should avoid the extremes of optimism or pessimism about the possible outcome. In his reply, Richard Rice, Professor of Theology at La Sierra University, has some misgivings about Quinn's solutions. He doubts whether religious ideas can off er an appropriate focus for public laws and emphasizes that while a society may be secular, it may nevertheless exercise religious tolerance. In this way, religious pluralism will be tolerated. To ensure these ends, Rice argues, official public policies should be based on secular reason above. In the second symposium, Marilyn Adams, who is Professor of Historical Theology at Yale Divinity School, argues that a high Chalcedonian christology is crucial to providing a Christian solution to the problem of evil. Rejecting the solutions of traditional theodicies, she argues that God's love for human beings is such that it will be shown in ultimate heavenly beatitude, in the light of which even victims of horrendous evils will not wish them taken away from their life histories. In his reply, lohn B. Cobb lr, Ingraham Professor of Theology, emeritus, at the School of Theology at Claremont, welcomes the emphasis on God sharing in human suffering in the experience of believers. He has difficulty, however, with the suggestion that this implies that people would not wish not to have suffered in the first place. Wouldn't a mother who watches her child suff er prefer that

14 XlV Introduction child not to have suffered, and would it not have been better if the child had lived to experience adult life? Does any of this show that such suffering adds to the goodness of the world? Surely not. Cobb argues that these problems arise out of the conception of divine power which is assumed by advocates of traditional theodicies. In the final symposium of the collection, Linda Zagzebski, Professor of Philosophy at Loyola Marymount University, puts forward a moral notion of rational arguments for theologians based on Aristotle's conception of phronesis, a reasoned and true state or capacity to act with regard to human goods. Linking these insights with Newman's thought, and combatting the charge of relativism, Zagzebski argues that here we have a model for rationality which is superior to any alternative, by which a belief is rational if it is accepted by a person with phronesis in the relevant circumstances. In her reply, Professor Nancey Murphy, Professor of Christian Philosophy at Fuller Theological Seminary, is worried by the fact that Zagzebski's proposal could seem too individualistic to be offered as an alternative to models of rationality based on mathematics, sense perception or science. Zagzebski's proposal is best seen as a valuable addition to those other models. All the contributors to the collection take Christian tradition seriously. Part of that tradition has been the conversation between theology and philosophy. The nine symposia presented in this collection give informative and valuable insights into important aspects of that conversation in our time.